3 Answers
3

The more important point, however, is that if a term is taken as problematic, let's say racist in this case, by a vulnerable group, then it does not really matter what the dictionary definition is ("fair" meaning "light" as opposed to "just") -- what matters is the way the term is perceived by that group. I suspect that the increase in use of "light-skinned" compared to "fair-skinned" in recent years has at least in part to do with this.

I absolutely agree with your general point that what really matters is whether offense is actually caused, and to whom! However, I’d be surprised if the increase in light-skinned is due to this; I’ve never heard of anyone being offended by or misunderstanding fair-skinned. Or have you come across that?
–
PLLJul 13 '12 at 11:47

The term fair-skinned is common enough that it's very unlikely to be deemed as political incorrect. I did some corpus searches, and found these excerpts, which I think would be fairly safe from being labeled as racist:

The transmission of UVA into the dermis of an untanned fair-skinned individual is approximately 50% of the impinging flux. Even-pigmented persons with brown skin transmit a significant amount of UVA radiation (30-35%).1

Non-melanoma skin cancers occur more frequently than any other type of cancer in fair-skinned populations, and their incidence has been rising rapidly for several decades.2

However, if you were brazen enough to say:

I'm much more likely to do my business dealings with fair-skinned individuals.

then that probably would be considered politically incorrect – but not because you used the word fair instead of light. In fact, if you swapped the word light for fair, I doubt the perceived unfairness of the statement would change.

The problem is with people who are not fair-skinned misunderstanding the intended first definition with the third definition. They will take that to mean that their own skin is not beautiful or pleasant.
–
dotancohenJul 17 '12 at 3:13